1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to the art of invalid walkers, and in particular concerns forearm rests combined with most any type of conventional invalid walker. The forearm rests are located spaced above the normal hand grips of the walker, and are arranged to provide inward-lateral support to a user's outwardly flexed forearms as the user is supporting and/or steadying him or herself while in a standing position, which includes while walking.
2. Prior Art
Invalid walkers are apparatus that are well known in the art for helping invalid users to stand and/or walk relatively freely across level ground or up and down stairs and the like. A representative invalid walker for crossing level ground is shown by U.S. Pat. No. 4,135,535--Thomas. An invalid walker which can be selectively altered dually for (i) crossing level ground or (ii) negotiating stairs, is shown by U.S. Pat. No. 4,094,331--Rozsa.
Conventional walkers need to be inherently strong as well as stable because an invalid user must rely upon the walker as his or her sole source of support. They are preferably also light in weight and relatively inexpensive. They are popularly made out of aluminum tubing frames.
Conventional invalid walkers, like the Thomas and Rozsa walkers, have normal hand grips located about the top of the aluminum-tube frame. The normal hand grips give the user something to grasp and steady him or herself in the standing position. Both the Thomas and Rozsa walkers also feature a lower set of hand grips, below the normal and upper set of hand-grips. In the Thomas walker, the lower set of hand grips give the user something to grab when assuming the standing position from the sitting position. In the Rozsa walker, the lower set of hand grips are located where the user can hold them when climbing steps. When climbing steps, the Rozsa walker would be placed on stair steps both in front and above the step that the user is standing on. Thus the normal set of upper hand grips would be too uncomfortably high, or simply not practically usable, for the user to support and steady him or herself. However, the user would revert to grasping the normal, upper set of hand grips when crossing level ground.
With both Thomas and Rozsa, these walkers are conventional as far as giving the user, during normal modes of use (as crossing level ground), only the normal set of hand-grips to gain support from, and steady him or herself. Yet, other walkers have been configured to give the user additional assistance, such as support under the armpits by extensions that appear like the upper ends of crutches. For example, see U.S. Pat. No. Des. 181,957--Callahan; and, U.S. Pat. No. 4,993,446--Yarbrough.
These last two walkers, the walkers of Callahan and Yarbrough, have exchanged lightness of weight and the relatively compact size of a conventional walker, for inherently taller and heavier, more massive structures. In respect of being tall, the Callahan and Yarbrough walkers have upper extensions that reach up under the arm pits of a standing user, whereas the Thomas or Rozsa walkers are no higher than waist high.
It is generally true that a taller structure is more easily tipped or teetered over relative to a shorter structure, unless the taller structure is given a comparatively wide base. But in order to do that, the Callahan or Yarbrough walker must be modified until the leg posts flare out like outriggers.
The Callahan and Yarbrough walkers are also relatively more massive and heavier than conventional walkers. Presumably they are more expensive than conventional walkers too. These characteristics detract from their utility as compared to conventional walkers. Conventional walkers are easily portable. Conventional walkers typically collapse for storage or transport, such as to fit in a trunk or back seat of a car. Conventional walkers are also easily handled and lifted by the invalid users, or at least slid. Conventional walkers are presumably more easily maneuvered than a walker reaching up under the arm pits, because conventional walker is simply "steered" more as less as a wheelbarrow.
However, the Callahan and Yarbrough walkers do address shortcomings that conventional walkers do not. And those are, that conventional walkers require the invalid user to have relatively great arm strength and relatively steady motor control of his or her arm muscles. Instead, the reverse is more likely. Any user who has such weak legs or unsteady motor control over his or her leg muscles as to need a walker, is just as likely to suffer from diminished arm strength and diminished motor control over his or her arm muscles.
It would be a desirable improvement in walkers, if a conventional walker could be modified to give the user better support so that the user gets by safely with diminished arm strength and motor control over his or her arm muscles. Additionally, it would be a desirable improvement in walkers if this modification or enhancement could be achieved while insignificantly adding any more size and/or weight to the walker, or detracting from its general utility or popularity. What is needed is an improved invalid walker apparatus or enhancement thereto, which overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art.